Wall Street Bonuses Out of Control

[camoor]

Bank of America Corp. is under pressure to scale back payouts after New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo subpoenaed executives earlier this week for information on compensation and President Barack Obama said just yesterday that bonuses handed out by banks represent “the height of irresponsibility.”
The current system of “asymmetric compensation,” in which people are rewarded when they do well and aren’t required to return the rewards when they lose money, is detrimental to society and needs to change, said Nassim Taleb, a professor at New York University and author of “The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable,” in an interview.
The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a $700 billion taxpayer bailout in the U.S. and the demise of three of the biggest securities firms -- Bear Stearns Cos., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Merrill Lynch & Co. -- didn’t deter investment banks from offering year-end rewards to employees on top of their salaries.
Financial companies in New York City paid cash bonuses of $18.4 billion last year, the sixth-most in history, even as they posted record losses, according to data compiled by the office of state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. The payouts are split among everyone from managing directors to secretaries.

...
Unless Rubin and others are required to return their bonuses or are punished in some way, Taleb said a regrettable system emerges “where profits are privatized and losses are nationalized.”


So - anyone naive enough to think that the Wall Street bonus system will really change?

[dmaul1114]

It won't change with out regulations. We really need some kind of regulations on salaries/bonuses not being able to exceed a certain percentage of the corporations profits. If nothing else the regulations should at least be put on companies that have gotten bail out funds.

[rickonker]

The government and Wall Street work together and our money is transferred to them. It's been like this for a long time, but the current situation just makes it even more obvious.

[HotShotX]

It won't change with out regulations. We really need some kind of regulations on salaries/bonuses not being able to exceed a certain percentage of the corporations profits. If nothing else the regulations should at least be put on companies that have gotten bail out funds.

Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-Missouri) got your back:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/executive.pay/index.html

Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee (of a company being bailed out by the government) would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.

Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.
~HotShotX

[camoor]

I admit, I was a bit mad before I read this:

Please accept my profound apologies for the terrible inconvenience that I have caused over the past weeks. Ruth and I appreciate the support we have received.
Best regards,
Bernard Madoff

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/nyregion/12bigcity.html

\\:D/

[Friend of Sonic]

Spoiled bastards. I work for BoA (Countrywide) and we didn't get nothing for Christmas. No early time off on Christmas Eve, no cookies, a meal, a candy cane, nothing.

And I was all right with it because times are tough and I still have a well paying job.

[evanft]

I like McCaskill's idea.

[KingBroly]

I don't think the bonuses are the problem, though. The problem is when these CEO's leave or lose their jobs, they get A HUGE paycheck. Now I don't know how it works for the rest of the world, but when you lose your job, you're not supposed to get paid.

And no, I don't consider these bonuses in the strict sense.

[BillyBob29]

Yeah, these CEO's are just crazy.

Giving themselves raises and bonuses during a recession, increasing their own expense accounts by $93k per year, per representative......its like they think they are congressmen or something.

[camoor]

Yeah, these CEO's are just crazy.

Giving themselves raises and bonuses during a recession, increasing their own expense accounts by $93k per year, per representative......its like they think they are congressmen or something.

The current salary (2009) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm

If CEOs were being paid an average of $174,000 per year I wouldn't care. Hell, if only their bonuses were $174,000 per year I wouldn't care. Look at the figures again - CEOs are being paid some pretty outrageous sums of money.

[KingBroly]

I think you forget one thing, though. CEO's can't raise their own pay (They have to ask the board, which they're usually buddies with, but still not in complete control there). House and Senate members can without authorization from another branch of Government. Albeit only for the next term, where in most cases they already know if they're getting re-elected or not. They also get housing as well as a lot of other benefits, including better social security (Privatized) and health care.

[evanft]

Yes, that completely invalidates the argument. Srsly.

[Koggit]

Congressmen are underpaid

[elprincipe]

Congressmen are underpaid

There's an unpopular opinion!

[Koggit]

They're overqualified.. most have JD's from top law schools. People complain about our elected officials then whine if they're paid as much as first-year associates and blame them for accepting lobbyist gifts. If we paid them market value then maybe they wouldn't resort to selling their vote...

[docvinh]

They're overqualified.. most have JD's from top law schools. People complain about our elected officials then whine if they're paid as much as first-year associates and blame them for accepting lobbyist gifts. If we paid them market value then maybe they wouldn't resort to selling their vote...

I'm sure they still would. If they want more money, stay in the private sector.

[Koggit]

Lol.. seriously? Come on now

[docvinh]

Lol.. seriously? Come on now

What makes you think they still wouldn't sell their vote? CEO's make millions of dollars and still steal money from their companies. If they seriously want to make money, stay in the private sector. I'm not sure what's so hard to comprehend here.

[camoor]

From what I've seen, congressmen tend to be greedy for popularity while corporate executives tend to be greedy for money (and they all lust for power)

It seems that we all agree executive pay is out-of-hand, the question now moves to what we can do about it. I like the idea of govt regulation in theory, I'm just concerned about how it could be implemented given the typical corporate finance bag-o-tricks. Either way, given the recent govt infusion of cash to banks, I think we the people have an unprecedented opportunity to pay bank CEOs the pay and perks that their recent performance merits.

[docvinh]

From what I've seen, congressmen tend to be greedy for popularity while corporate executives tend to be greedy for money (and they all lust for power)

It seems that we all agree executive pay is out-of-hand, the question now moves to what we can do about it. I like the idea of govt regulation in theory, I'm just concerned about how it could be implemented given the typical corporate finance bag-o-tricks. Either way, given the recent govt infusion of cash to banks, I think we the people have an unprecedented opportunity to pay bank CEOs the pay and perks that their recent performance merits.

I guess that's the my problem with raising a congressman's pay, I don't think that it would really work. They already know it doesn't pay as well as the private sector (although if those numbers are right for average pay, they're doing just fine), yet they still go into it, so it's not about the money. But to get back on topic, I do agree something needs to be done, I don't really understand how you can still get perks and bonuses when your company is going under, that just doesn't make any sense.

[rmb]

Top executive bonuses are not excessive. I do not agree with them recieving huge payoff's when a company is going into bankruptcy and doing poorly. The huge bonus and stock options they get are provided as a means for the shareholder's of the company to ensure that the executives work to meet the interests of the shareholders. The shareholders want long term growth and success, as well as current dividends. The pay scale is in place for a reason. The reasons are valid. It just needs to be changed slightly for instances when the company is sucking ass.

[mykevermin]

Right. Because someone could not do the same job for any less than $400 million in stock options per year. Because Robert Nardelli fucked over Home Depot so much they thanked him with a $213 million kick in the ass out the door.

We need a maximum wage in this country.

[Hex]

Under the terms of a bill introduced by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, no employee (of a company being bailed out by the government) would be allowed to make more than the president of the United States.

Obama's current annual salary is $400,000.

I always wondered something- how does the President get his paycheck? They just direct deposit his Wachovia bank account and send him a paystub?

If so, it's now my personal mission to steal Barack Obama's debit card and PIN numb- *gack* :fridge:

[camoor]

Top executive bonuses are not excessive. I do not agree with them recieving huge payoff's when a company is going into bankruptcy and doing poorly. The huge bonus and stock options they get are provided as a means for the shareholder's of the company to ensure that the executives work to meet the interests of the shareholders. The shareholders want long term growth and success, as well as current dividends. The pay scale is in place for a reason. The reasons are valid. It just needs to be changed slightly for instances when the company is sucking ass.

The reasons are valid? So you think it's valid to have the CEOs doling out favors to the BOD in return for huge bonuses for the executive team? Is it fair for CEOs to poison pill efforts to oust them with self-enriching golden parachutes? Is it right that investors and employees have almost no recourse when CEOs and the BOD decide to enrich themselves at the expense of the people (as we've heard, even congress is powerless because the bonus packages and golden parachutes are "legally binding")? Do you really believe the best people for the job are being selected for executive team jobs, do you really think that class, money, status, and last name have nothing to do with these decisions?

Slight changes is all we've had so far and it hasn't had the impact we need. The mega-rich are never going to stop taking, independent investors and workers need better access to decision-making apparatus - the people deserve a say. What's more American then putting it to a vote? Why can't companies put out a ballot to investors asking what kind of bonus to pay the exec team and what to pay the average worker. It could be a percentage of stock price increase, or profit earned, explain all the formulae. Then exec teams could take it or leave it. Warren Buffet is only successful because he owns the companies he invests in - let's empower all investors big and small to make the truly important decisions, enough of only asking to pick between this blueblood ninny and that upper-class twit for entry to the BOD/exec team.

Don't the investors own a public company, shouldn't they be the ones making the most important decisions? You don't put a fox in charge of a henhouse, so why do we allow the mega-rich to collude with each other on how much money to raid out of publicly traded corporations.

[Msut77]

so why do we allow the mega-rich to collude with each other on how much money to raid out of publicly traded corporations.

Because anything less would be communism.

[vherub]

the real shame is the aig bonuses
as for bonuses at companies getting bailed out, it's a tricky bridge- I would like to see bonuses at the firms getting bailed out to switch from cash to stock options that are underwater. Say BoA, right now the stock is at $6. You would get stock options at $10 or $12. You would then have incentive to stay as well as a strong personal desire to improve the situation at the company. And if you continued to run the company into the ground, you wouldn't be getting anything.

[rickonker]

The problem is the continuous transfer of money from ordinary citizens to Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, etc.

They piss that money away at the height of the bubble, and continue to do so during the crash. What do you expect?

[Friend of Sonic]

We need a maximum wage in this country.

Right. I say no one makes more than one million a year for work, and this includes pro athletes. It would piss them off, but can you imagine how the savings would trickle down to the fans-- cheaper tickets, hats, jerseys, hell the beer would be cheaper!

...

Okay, okay, could you imagine how the savings would trickle to upper management of the stadiums?

[elprincipe]

Top executive bonuses are not excessive. I do not agree with them recieving huge payoff's when a company is going into bankruptcy and doing poorly. The huge bonus and stock options they get are provided as a means for the shareholder's of the company to ensure that the executives work to meet the interests of the shareholders. The shareholders want long term growth and success, as well as current dividends. The pay scale is in place for a reason. The reasons are valid. It just needs to be changed slightly for instances when the company is sucking ass.

Baloney. Your company is losing $40 BILLION and is bailed out by the taxpayers, but $15 BILLION in bonuses (out of the pockets of taxpayers) is "not excessive"? If taking billions of dollars in bonuses when your fantastic management style has resulted in near-bankruptcy isn't excessive, what, pray tell, is?

[elprincipe]

The problem is the continuous transfer of money from ordinary citizens to Wall Street, Fortune 500 companies, etc.

And when their schemes finally caught up with them, Hank Paulson, George Bush, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, to name the main culprits, gave them a further gift of $700 billion of our tax money. Good thing that has stabilized the economy....wait a minute.

[rickonker]

And when their schemes finally caught up with them, Hank Paulson, George Bush, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, to name the main culprits, gave them a further gift of $700 billion of our tax money. Good thing that has stabilized the economy....wait a minute.
The $700 billion served its purpose.




;)

[speedracer]

Right. Because someone could not do the same job for any less than $400 million in stock options per year. Because Robert Nardelli fucked over Home Depot so much they thanked him with a $213 million kick in the ass out the door.
That's always been one of those capitalistic paradoxes I can't get my mind around. I mean, if the system works, how on Earth could they not find someone willing to do it for $399 million and a $212 million parachute? Or for $398m/$211m? We're talking about millions of dollars in stockholder capital here. How can we reconcile a system like this when the rules of the system break down so brazenly at the top?

It's like a ponzi scheme except they don't even "promise" returns.

[mykevermin]

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8731/27339908fn6.jpg

<3 The Onion.

[GuilewasNK]

Right. Because someone could not do the same job for any less than $400 million in stock options per year. Because Robert Nardelli fucked over Home Depot so much they thanked him with a $213 million kick in the ass out the door.

We need a maximum wage in this country.


I have to disagree with a maximum wage. As long as a company is financially sound, and not cutting grunts from the payroll despite overpaying management then it doesn't bother me.

But I do believe in a federally mandated maximum severence package for executives who fail or drive companies into the ground.

[KingBroly]

Yeah, maximum wage will definitely not fly in this country. Not saying that many people would be against it, but too many rich people with power could cause a lot of trouble for those politicians if they tried.

Personally, a maximum wage can fuck right off.

[MSI Magus]

Spoiled bastards. I work for BoA (Countrywide) and we didn't get nothing for Christmas. No early time off on Christmas Eve, no cookies, a meal, a candy cane, nothing.

And I was all right with it because times are tough and I still have a well paying job.

This is the sad thing. I have heard far too many people say they are willing to take pay check cuts, benefit cuts or cut their hours. People are willing to sacrafice to help things along.....but in general they just get screwed and often fired while their boss gets a new car and a wife with new boobs.

This is why I dont feel bad saying the rich should be taxed at a higher rate, because its not just the fact that they are getting payed 10x what they should but they are also being showered with bonuses and they refuse to make any sacraficing for the good of their employees or America as a whole.

But hey thats ok. Whenever the nation collapses and we all run out of food I say we just bump up some Aerosmith and as the song says eat the rich.

[mykevermin]

Yeah, maximum wage will definitely not fly in this country. Not saying that many people would be against it, but too many rich people with power could cause a lot of trouble for those politicians if they tried.

Personally, a maximum wage can fuck right off.

I'll say many people will be against it. I might as well argue that we place a hammer and sickle on the flag, and eliminate the 50 stars. That's a joke.

But, yeah, it's philosophically contrary to the "unlimited wealth" idea of American capitalism. We all love the idea of unlimited wealth, because we don't think about how it comes at our expense, both in terms of increased cost and decreased wages and benefits.

How many people could have beneftted from Bob Nardelli's $213m golden parachute that he didn't fucking need, nor did he fucking deserve?

EDIT: Aerosmith should have died in 1977. Motorhead's "Eat the Rich" is a superior tune.

[rmb]

Baloney. Your company is losing $40 BILLION and is bailed out by the taxpayers, but $15 BILLION in bonuses (out of the pockets of taxpayers) is "not excessive"? If taking billions of dollars in bonuses when your fantastic management style has resulted in near-bankruptcy isn't excessive, what, pray tell, is?
I never implied that this was ok. I was just stating that executive compensation has a reason behind it. That is why these top exec's get stock options. These stock options are not available to collect for typically a few years. A top exec may get 100,000 shares but they are structured such that the exec may sell X quantity in 1 year, Y quantity in 3 years...... and so on. I was just trying to inform those that have no clue about executive compensation how it works. Obviously there are cases where it doesn't always work the way it should. Those cases piss me off as much as the rest.

Added: Camoor, tell me who elects the board of directors?In most, but not all cases the board of director's is elected by the shareholder's. Many shareholder's never cast a vote so when those people get fucked they have no bitch as far as I am concerned.

[RAMSTORIA]

<3 The Onion.

awesome

[camoor]

I never implied that this was ok. I was just stating that executive compensation has a reason behind it. That is why these top exec's get stock options. These stock options are not available to collect for typically a few years. A top exec may get 100,000 shares but they are structured such that the exec may sell X quantity in 1 year, Y quantity in 3 years...... and so on. I was just trying to inform those that have no clue about executive compensation how it works. Obviously there are cases where it doesn't always work the way it should. Those cases piss me off as much as the rest.

Added: Camoor, tell me who elects the board of directors?In most, but not all cases the board of director's is elected by the shareholder's. Many shareholder's never cast a vote so when those people get fucked they have no bitch as far as I am concerned.

Added: Camoor, tell me who elects the board of directors?In most, but not all cases the board of director's is elected by the shareholder's. Many shareholder's never cast a vote so when those people get fucked they have no bitch as far as I am concerned.[/quote]

I had a long post and CAG fucking ate it. I swear this fucking forum DB is run by gerbils running in cages.

Long story short, when CEOs get record payments for utter failure, the system is broken. The BOD ballot system is not working, and your knee-jerk reaction is to blame uninformed investors.

I see it differently. Investors may not know how the latest BOD up for election will vote, even if they know the bastard is going to sell them out to the CEO for a lucrative contract, it's a stretch to think that the investor can successfully launch a write-in campaign against the corrupt BOD member.

Let the people vote on executive pay (and the BOD can provide regulation-defined options such as percentage of stock increase or percentage of sales). Let the people vote on whether a failing CEO should be outsted or given more time. Remember - the CEO works for investors, the government works for the people.

[rickonker]

That's always been one of those capitalistic paradoxes I can't get my mind around. I mean, if the system works, how on Earth could they not find someone willing to do it for $399 million and a $212 million parachute? Or for $398m/$211m? We're talking about millions of dollars in stockholder capital here. How can we reconcile a system like this when the rules of the system break down so brazenly at the top?

It's like a ponzi scheme except they don't even "promise" returns.

There's no paradox because this is not a capitalist economy.

[speedracer]

There's no paradox because this is not a capitalist economy.
If you have a wider point to make, then make it. That doesn't do much for me.

[MSI Magus]

Obama is looking to cap the pay of execs receiving bail outs
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bailout_executive_pay

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I like how some companies think they're going to skirt this law by giving out stock instead of cash.

We're over a year away from the beginning of the 2010 election cycle and the last two presidents have passed retroactive tax laws.

[mykevermin]

"not to be living high on the hog" = $500K/year max.

Wow, and they said McCain was out of touch.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

"not to be living high on the hog" = $500K/year max.

Wow, and they said McCain was out of touch.

I want to see a documentary detailing the plight of the wealthy.

1. Driving a new Toyota.

2. Sending kids to Tier 2 private schools.

3. 3 weeks of paid vacation.

4. 1 paid "seminar" in a resort per month.

[willardhaven]

"not to be living high on the hog" = $500K/year max.

Wow, and they said McCain was out of touch.

Indeed.

[speedracer]

I want to see a documentary detailing the plight of the wealthy.

1. Driving a new Toyota.

2. Sending kids to Tier 2 private schools.

3. 3 weeks of paid vacation.

4. 1 paid "seminar" in a resort per month.
It should be done in the style of that MTV show about parents spending absurd sums on daughters' sweet sixteen parties. Watching daughters throw shit fits because the folks can only afford the 500 class BMW for their birthday would be awesome.

[rickonker]

If you have a wider point to make, then make it. That doesn't do much for me.

In a capitalist economy, the government doesn't continuously transfer money to the financial sector, where it leads to massive golden parachutes and pay packages for CEOs.

[speedracer]

In a capitalist economy, the government doesn't continuously transfer money to the financial sector, where it leads to massive golden parachutes and pay packages for CEOs.
Welp, I agree with you, but I would strongly suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for "capitalism" to show up.

[elprincipe]

Welp, I agree with you, but I would strongly suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for "capitalism" to show up.

Certainly not with the actions of the last two administrations.

[Hex]

It should be done in the style of that MTV show about parents spending absurd sums on daughters' sweet sixteen parties. Watching daughters throw shit fits because the folks can only afford the 500 class BMW for their birthday would be awesome.

Nothing, nothing can describe the absolute fucking unbridled, uncensored RAGE I get watching those disgusting, filthy, abhorrent, de-fucking-spicable "sweet sixteen" parties. The opulent parties, the expensive gifts- the "drama": some bitch's music gets screwed up in her dance routine in front of her 1,500 guests and she runs off crying into the back, only to call her mother a bitch and claim that mother doesn't love her?! *flail* People are fuckin' losing their jobs, their homes, their LIVES and this bitch is upset about a jacked up song?

And that's why I hate selfish rich people. I'm all for salary caps. Lewis Black is my holmes yo.

[willardhaven]

If the government (supposedly for the good of its people) is paying these companies, it should pay the management minimum wage. These corporate CEOs need a reality check.

[KingBroly]

If CEO's get their wages lowered, everyone else's wages in the company will also get lowered, right down to the janitor. And don't even try and tell me that the companies won't do this either, if it comes to that.

[camoor]

If CEO's get their wages lowered, everyone else's wages in the company will also get lowered, right down to the janitor. And don't even try and tell me that the companies won't do this either, if it comes to that.

Not that this has anything to do with the discussion at hand, but I don't buy it. Big corporations put the squeeze on their workers a long time ago (I'm talking about the grunts, not the exec team). If they put more downward pressure on wages the best people will leave (economy be damned) and they'll be left with alot of deadwood. As for the janitor, his wage is safe because you can't go lower then minimum wage.

Basically CEOs are right now trying to figure out how to pacify their exec teams while making an end-run around regulations so they can pick up that big fat paycheck when all is said and done. And they'll win. In the end the rich always win - it's a historical fact.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Basically CEOs are right now trying to figure out how to pacify their exec teams while making an end-run around regulations so they can pick up that big fat paycheck when all is said and done. And they'll win. In the end the rich always win - it's a historical fact.

What about Rome?

What about Spain?

What about England?

Being rich gives you an edge (and lots of shiny things), but it doesn't prevent the inevitable.

[paddlefoot]

"not to be living high on the hog" = $500K/year max.

Wow, and they said McCain was out of touch.

Yes, then you also have to ask if this is a good thing. These limits are only being placed on companies receiving bailout money. What is stopping their good employees from leaving the company and getting a job where earnings aren't capped.

The rich get richer, the poor get dumber

[camoor]

What about Rome?

What about Spain?

What about England?

Being rich gives you an edge (and lots of shiny things), but it doesn't prevent the inevitable.

For every fall of Rome there's a rich Constantine and crew in Constantinople (meet the new boss, same as the old boss). The Eloi occasionally abandon a few of their own to pacify the Morlocks, however nothing really changes. Aberations like the democratic republics of Athens, Rome, and America are slowly corrupted and succumb to the inevitable shift of power back to the oligarchy.

[speedracer]

Yes, then you also have to ask if this is a good thing. These limits are only being placed on companies receiving bailout money. What is stopping their good employees from leaving the company and getting a job where earnings aren't capped.

The rich get richer, the poor get dumber
These companies are so jacked up that their human capital is the least of their concerns. The "executive class" needs some serious reigning in. Right fucking now.

[elprincipe]

Yes, then you also have to ask if this is a good thing. These limits are only being placed on companies receiving bailout money. What is stopping their good employees from leaving the company and getting a job where earnings aren't capped.

The rich get richer, the poor get dumber

There is no good solution, unless we have a time machine and can go back and stop the government from starting these idiotic bailouts. Or maybe just going back and stopping Henry Paulson from becoming the worst Treasury secretary in the history of the country.

[Ruined]

So how come Wall Street execs bonuses/salary are out of control, but Hollywood filmmakers - some of whom are multi-millionaires and making much more than Wall Street execs - get a tax breaks on buying film for their movies in the bloated economic stimulus bill Obama is supporting?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[BillyBob29]

Because Pelosi is constantly down on her knees for Hollywood this stimulus plan has her fingerprints all over it.

[camoor]

So how come Wall Street execs bonuses/salary are out of control, but Hollywood filmmakers - some of whom are multi-millionaires and making much more than Wall Street execs - get a tax breaks on buying film for their movies in the bloated economic stimulus bill Obama is supporting?

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Bailing out banks to the tune of 700 billion dollars ~ pork line item in the form of a tax break for buying film? That's a stretch even for a professional spinmeister like you.

In other news, we have found the first conservative who saw a tax break he didn't like.

[Ruined]

Bailing out banks to the tune of 700 billion dollars ~ pork line item in the form of a tax break for buying film? That's a stretch even for a professional spinmeister like you.

In other news, we have found the first conservative who saw a tax break he didn't like.

Right, because bailing out banks allows America's economy to survive. No banks = no credit = no way to get loans = no way to buy anything big = we are all screwed. Giving a filmmaker a tax break on film, on the other hand, is just a waste of money in the economic arena... unless you are stating filmmakers and actors are going to start giving personal loans out to individuals who need to buy a house or a car?

Or hold on, if a hollywood director makes a movie that bombs with that tax break (that the people pay for) and it costs the studio money, should the government step in and put a salary cap on all of those involved in making the film? lol.

[elprincipe]

Right, because bailing out banks allows America's economy to survive. No banks = no credit = no way to get loans = no way to buy anything big = we are all screwed.

What makes you think that bank bailouts were required for any banks to exist? The problems were with certain large banks that were far too leveraged. Smaller and local banks were doing fine. All the bailouts that have occurred so far, as well as the insane "stimulus" bill, are indefensible.

[camoor]

Right, because bailing out banks allows America's economy to survive. No banks = no credit = no way to get loans = no way to buy anything big = we are all screwed. Giving a filmmaker a tax break on film, on the other hand, is just a waste of money in the economic arena... unless you are stating filmmakers and actors are going to start giving personal loans out to individuals who need to buy a house or a car?

Or hold on, if a hollywood director makes a movie that bombs with that tax break (that the people pay for) and it costs the studio money, should the government step in and put a salary cap on all of those involved in making the film? lol.

You completely missed the point. How much money does the high-quality film tax break line item represent? I'd be surprised if it was as much as .0001% of the money being used to bail out the banks. It's not that I disagree with you about the pork in the bill, it's that you're letting partisan politics steer your attention towards chickenshit line items and away from the fact that banks got emergency bailouts that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and rewarded their exec teams for failure with the 6th biggest round of bonuses in history.

There's another fundemental difference here. The government is negotiating a loan to the banks and the govt has the right to set the terms of the loan. If Warren Buffet was negotiating a loan to the banks and one of his stipulations was lowering the pay of CEOs, you'd cry foul if a third party came in and took that negotiating power away from Buffet. Well now the politicians are setting the rules for how our taxpayer money is loaned out. If the banks don't like it, they choose to pass on taking my taxpayer money, or they can pay it back as quick as possible. After all it's still a free country for rich people.

[KingBroly]

The Government has a right to dictate where and where they can't spend the loan money. However, any money that the company already has can be used as they see fit in my eyes.

[Kayden]

Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-Missouri) got your back:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/30/executive.pay/index.html

~HotShotX

If this happens, I'll shit myself. Of course, it'll be worded in such a way that the funds must be at least x% of their annual income. Or they'll set up a subsidiary that will take the money and the parent company won't have to abide by the terms. Or they'll just do what congress does; can't raise their pay right away, but they can do "cost of living" increases. TOTALLY different. What constitutes the payment? Bonuses? Stocks? Housing? Expense accounts? "Performance incentives" It doesn't matter what is done or how it's phrased, the rich will find a way to undermine any attempt to curtail exorbitant wealth hoarding.



EDIT: Aerosmith should have died in 1977. Motorhead's "Eat the Rich" is a superior tune.
Damn strait. 8-)

You completely missed the point. How much money does the high-quality film tax break line item represent? I'd be surprised if it was as much as .0001% of the money being used to bail out the banks. It's not that I disagree with you about the pork in the bill, it's that you're letting partisan politics steer your attention towards chickenshit line items and away from the fact that banks got emergency bailouts that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and rewarded their exec teams for failure with the 6th biggest round of bonuses in history.

That "chickenshit" line item is worth more than the combined income of everyone in this thread over our entire lifetimes.


The fucked up thing is that they're still being rewarded for failure... just less. They only get half a million dollar bonus. Call me crazy... but shouldn't the penalty for failure be no bonus as long as we're playing hardball?

[dmaul1114]

If this happens, I'll shit myself.


Did you miss the news last week? Obama put forth a policy that any company getting bailout funds cannot have any employees with compensation over $500,000.

If they want to pay more they can give stock options--but there's a stipulation on those that the stocks cannot be sold until the company has totally paid back the bail out loans they received.

I'm not sure what the status is in terms of that being put in effect though.

[Kayden]

I wouldn't say I missed the news. I generally intentionally avoid it. :lol: All I read is that it was proposed. I didn't know if it was actually in place. Even then, in place and enforced are two separate things.

Before any company gets a government handout they should have already not paid ANY bonus and lowered the top X% peoples salaries by X% to make the budget like every other family and small business in the country.

Government handouts shouldn't come into play when you can't pay bonuses, but when you're legitamately almost fucked.

That should be a law too. No company can operate in the red and give bonuses or pay $X0,000,000,000 to people that are already wiping their asses with Bennies.


Did you miss the news last week? Obama put forth a policy that any company getting bailout funds cannot have any employees with compensation over $500,000.

If they want to pay more they can give stock options--but there's a stipulation on those that the stocks cannot be sold until the company has totally paid back the bail out loans they received.

I'm not sure what the status is in terms of that being put in effect though.

[evanft]

If CEO's get their wages lowered, everyone else's wages in the company will also get lowered, right down to the janitor. And don't even try and tell me that the companies won't do this either, if it comes to that.

How does that work?

[MSI Magus]

I wouldn't say I missed the news. I generally intentionally avoid it. :lol: All I read is that it was proposed. I didn't know if it was actually in place. Even then, in place and enforced are two separate things.

Before any company gets a government handout they should have already not paid ANY bonus and lowered the top X% peoples salaries by X% to make the budget like every other family and small business in the country.

Government handouts shouldn't come into play when you can't pay bonuses, but when you're legitamately almost fucked.

That should be a law too. No company can operate in the red and give bonuses or pay $X0,000,000,000 to people that are already wiping their asses with Bennies.

I saw let them give the big bonuses. Let any company regardless of receiving government hand outs give huge bonuses. Instead just tax the company and the employee an insane amount for any bonuses given. Guarantee when a company is hit with a tax penalty for handing out $500k to a moron and the moron himself is taxed 80% of that bonus that shit will end REAL fast.

[Dr Mario Kart]

Bailout shouldntve happened. The government couldve started their own series of banks for that money, or secondarily bought all these companies several times over. Theres just not the political will for nationalization...yet.

[Kayden]

By law, all bonuses are supposed to be taxed at about 50%, at least for us "poor" people.

I saw let them give the big bonuses. Let any company regardless of receiving government hand outs give huge bonuses. Instead just tax the company and the employee an insane amount for any bonuses given. Guarantee when a company is hit with a tax penalty for handing out $500k to a moron and the moron himself is taxed 80% of that bonus that shit will end REAL fast.

[dmaul1114]

I wouldn't say I missed the news. I generally intentionally avoid it. :lol: All I read is that it was proposed. I didn't know if it was actually in place. Even then, in place and enforced are two separate things.


Dug up an article for you.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123375514020647787.html

Looks like it is in place. It's not retroactive to companies already receiving bailout, but will be in place as part of the contract with any companies receiving bailout funds in the future.

[Kayden]

Yea... it's still a joke. It's just less obscene.